By Hiromi Nishida
On August 1, 2025, the states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin joined in a lawsuit against President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14187, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”.
This EO aims to limit minors’ access to gender affirming care (as well as penalizing medical providers who offer these services) by incorrectly identifying gender affirming care as a form of FGM/C and attempting to apply the STOP FGM Act of 2020 to ban such care. This action ultimately contributes to the current administration’s atmosphere of causing “ fear and intimidation experienced by transgender individuals, their families and caregivers, and the medical professionals who seek only to provide necessary, lawful care to their patients.” (Lawsuit, pg. 2).
It is important to note that FGM/C and gender- affirming care are completely separate issues. FGM/C is the invasive, unconsensual, and non-medically necessary removal/injury of the external female-assigned genitalia. FGM/C is in direct contrast to gender- affirming care, which is consensual, medically necessary, and part of comprehensive care for transgender people’s external, psychological, and social health.
This conflation between FGM/C and gender-affirming care is deceptive, as well as deeply exploitative to the integrity of the mission to end the human rights violation that is FGM/C.
The lawsuit against EO 14187 cites that, “Bondi Directive [illegally] orders U.S. Attorneys to engage in the criminal prosecution of medically necessary care for transgender minors as purported violations of the laws against female genital mutilation.” (Lawsuit, pg. 37) Furthermore, EO 14187 incorrectly claims that, “The blatant harm done to children by chemical and surgical mutilation cloaks itself in medical necessity, spurred by guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).”
This landmark lawsuit ascertains that gender affirming care is paramount to the health and wellbeing of transgender people in America; “the incongruence between transgender people’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth can cause clinically significant distress, recognized by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (“DSM-5-TR”) as ‘gender dysphoria’” (Lawsuit, pg. 11).
Research indicates that dysphoria, external discrimination, and social estrangement due to identity for the trans community all contribute to statistically significant heightened rates of suicide attempts in transgender people, which makes us ask, why does the White House deem advocating for transgender mental health to be a “dangerous trend”?
The lawsuit against EO 14187 declares the initial EO unconstitutional and unlawful, a reflection of the Plaintiff States’ advocacy that, “… continued access to this medical care is vital to the health, well-being, dignity, and autonomy of their residents and people within their borders” (Lawsuit, pg. 71).
We commend DC and the 16 states involved in the EO 14187 lawsuit. The commitment of state legislators to protecting their constituents against violations of their rights is integral to empowering marginalized communities and creating a more equitable living situation in unprecedented political circumstances.
Learn more about the difference between FGM/C and gender-affirming care:
